just another ex-jazz-musician/proto-rapper/Jersey-Irish-poet-actor/print-junkie/film-raptor/beat-hipster-"white Negro"-rhapsodizer/ex-hippie-punk-'60s-radical-organizer's take on all things cultural, political, spiritual & aggrandizing

Sunday, March 13, 2011

ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE OF HOW (AND WHY) THE RIGHT LIES

I'm not always that crazy about what Joe Klein writes and has to say, but in this week's TIME he nails not just what's wrong about the right's constant lying about Obama, even if indirectly, but what's so abominably evil about it to my mind.

34 comments:

Good piece. It's vital that the lies and liars are called out at each and every instance. People of intelligence and good conscience know better. People like Huckabee, Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Jim are shameless, devoid of character, 100 percent hypocrits. They claim to be good people, the pass judgement on others with lies, then they themselve lie and commit the very offenses they accuse others, like our President, of.

If there is a hell, they will all burn in it one day and their children will pay the price for their sins.

Let's hope not their children. There is obviously no way rightwingers can be convinced that Obama isn't all that different from the rest of us (or them). Look what they did with Clinton. They actually believed Bill and Hilary murdered one of their best friends who was actually driven to suicide by rightwing media slanders and lies. The right doesn't care about facts, reality, etc. just getting and maintaining power in order to further the interests of their corporate masters, whether they are aware of that or just dupes to the relentless propaganda machine.

As usual, Jim cites no authority for his "poll numbers" or any links to the polls that would corroborate his claim. What he doesn't tell you is that President Obama's approval rating has been higher than his disapproval rating since February, and that the latest poll from Fox News shows that 51% approve, 43% disapprove, with 6% listed as "other." Unlike Jim, I can back up these numbers and much more in today's post on my blog:

Thanks Tom. As I point out on my comment on your excellent post on this, and have pointed out before, every time the right has made this claim, Obama's poll numbers have consistently been higher than Reagan's were at comparable points in their presidencies.But as always, the right doesn't care about facts, only about getting and maintaining power and unfortunately they have learned that the easiest way to do that may be in demonizing through lies and misrepresentations anyone who challenges that goal.Et-way-too-endlessly-cetera.

Ooooo, Jim. This will be a perfect example for all of Lal's readers as to how nefarious and dishonest you and your ilk are. I followed your so-called corroborating link and found that it led to a Reuters poll measuring whether the country is on the right track or the wrong track. This was NOT a poll measuring the President's approval rating. Obviously, there are scores, if not hundreds, of factors that contribute to one's assessment as to whether the country is on the right track. For example, if I were polled on that question I would say we are on the WRONG track because of the idiot majority in the House of Representatives, and the idiot, if not evil, majority of the Supreme Court.

I agree that buried within the link you provided is a statement that the President's approval rating dropped among independents, but we must realize that was in the context of a "right track/ wrong track poll" and, (I've been saving this 'til last) Reuters is in the tank for the right wing, and evidenced by this link:

Tom, Does one have to be nasty and impolite in order to be a liberal or does the philosophy change normally nice folks into jerks?

My statement was that Obama's poll numbers among independents has crashed. According to the poll, they have. My favorite polls are not Fox but are Rasmusen and Gallup becuase of their daily polling. Obama's approval is at 44 and 46% for those polls. His disapprovals are higher in one and lower in another.

Great comment Tom. Normally I'd delete the one that follows it because, as always, when facts and logic don't work, the rightwinger usually resorts to name calling. But it's too perfect an example to let pass. Especially the idea that "liberalism"—the disease of FDR and JFK— turns people into "jerks." If that's the case, I can't imagine what term would be accurate enough to describe what rightwing-ism (I hesitate to call it "conservatism" since the original meaning of that political perspective has been completely overtaken by rightwing tactics and perspectives that old time conservatives thoroughly rejected) has devolved into. I mean, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin? "Jerks" would be way to kind.

I have to admit, I kind of get a kick sometimes out of watching him get all apoplectic when I get tired of the lies and start deleting. Years ago when Rush's backers started taking over radio stations and offering free ads and paying stations to carry him etc. and he started being heard in L.A. (where I was living at the time), I would listen to him and then call in with a comment. I did that for a few years without ever getting on the air and then gave up. I'd always be honest about what I wanted to say, and sometimes they'd have me on hold for a while and sometimes they'd just cut me off immediately. But they never let this "liberal" share his point of view based on factual and researchable information (in the days before the internet).So I suppose I'm guilty of some mild payback with the delete button. But mostly it's just because I get so tired of the same old denial of reality and defense of the indefensible.

Lally,You have repeatedly accused me of lies and mistatements over the last 4 years. You have never ever proven such a charge of lie or even an inaccurate statement. Your most trusted technique is to delete since you can not refute. You are in fact an intellectual coward.

Apparently the definition of a lie was not taught to in your advanced study of English. However since you were also educated by The Sisters of Charity and the Benedictines I know you were exposed to it.

The definition of a lie is:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement

I have proven it over and over again and it's there in the comments and the posts. I delete repetitive lies, like the one in this comment, because it becomes so tiresome and time consuming and nonproductive. It has been shown in the comments from this rightwinger that no argument, no proof of lying, no reasoning or logic will ever distract this commenter from his goal of attacking anyone who veers from the rightwing talking points of the moment. It's tedious and is actually a form of anti-intellectual bullying. So for another while I will be deleting all his comments to give those of you who have repeatedly asked me to, the break we all deserve. There's enough of this nonsense in the world at large. To see what i've deleted, go listen to Rush.

PS: He has also repeatedly called me and others who share my belief in logic, reason, factual evidence and a just and fair society "jerks" and other derogatory names, as his last resort when our arguments cannot be refuted. Including those that point out his lying. As many have, Miles most recently, the most obvious lie is when he wrote that he would not comment anymore after the last election (he's done that before many times, but after a while comes back to begin harassing me and others once again).Also, I have resisted getting into the part of our past that we share and he constantly refers to (we grew up in the same town and went through the same Catholic k-12 grades) but because he has been relentless about that lately, I will refrain from taking potshots at his family, as he has done mine, but I will share that he came from a richer neighborhood, lived in a bigger house with fewer people on a bigger piece of land (a blanket would have covered our front lawn, and you could almost touch both interior walls of my house by stretching your arms out except you would have hit one of my five living siblings or maternal grandma or the boarder or various aunts and uncles and cousins and Irish relatives etc. who lived with us as well at different times) and at those two schools we went to together, I was among the top one or two students or so, told I had the highest I.Q. ever measured (I can say that now since my youthful lifestyle and recent brain surgery nullify whatever advantage that may have given me anyway), and was in the "brainy" section (we were tracked back then) where I got top grades while working several after school jobs as well as writing even then (and one of the jobs in my later teens was playing piano in bars and nightclubs). So, despite his advantages, I seemed to prove myself more capable of the kind of individual initiative the right is always blabbing about though they usually rely at least to some extent on their family backgrounds and connections (ala Bush/Cheney et. al.) and then berate those with fewer privileges for needing help from the rest of society to get a fair shake.

I just randomly went back to when the main rightwing commenter on this blog first started leaving his droppings on this blog around 2006 and found this immediately:

"Today, we have an unpopular president who is leading a war in the middle east against people who ultimately want to establish shariah law throughout the world. Wouldn't it just piss you off, if history treated George Bush , the bumbling idiot, who can not string proper sentences together, but who won three elections in a row against the best the Democrats had to offer, as a great president."

He's talking about Bush Jr. of course, who was waging an illegal war in Iraq against Sadaam Hussein, a sworn enemy of Islamists, so in fact was entirely AGAINST those who would impose Shariah law. It took me about two minutes to uncover this blatant lie from the rightwinger, one of the first among the many that have followed.

Just got back from some errands, and did another random few seconds search under the politics heading and immediately found this:

"Poor little Barackie had too much to handle. He bet on socialism rather than free enterprize."

As those of us who know our history remember, there have only been a handful of socialists elected to public office in this country, and most of them were at the level of mayors etc. The only socialist who ever actually ran for president and got a fair amount of votes (if I remember correctly he got about 12%) was Eugene V. Debs. As we all know, Obama is far from a socialist, much to the disappointment of many of those (us) on the left.

Thanks Miles, I put in a post, so hopefully a few more people will see it. And as for the comment above, which I left on as one more example of how the right just repeats and repeats meaningless accusations until, unfortunately, some people begin to believe them. Of course, as you and others who read this blog, including the comments, know, anywhere I haven't backed up my accusations against the right's repetitive lies and misrepresentations, others, like yourself and Alameda Tom and Shem et. al., have in the comments section. And, of course, the proof is out there to be found by anyone who is interested.

1- He went back on his word to desist from commenting. Right after the election I felt some pity for Liberals because the defeat has so overwhelming and would have been more, but for a few weak candididates.

2- Bush fighting to defeat Sharia; how could that be since Saddaam was not religious. At the time of the comment Obama was dead and we were fighting Al Quaida who fights for a world caliphate under shariah law.

3- Obama the Hamas candidate was called such because he was praised and seemingly endorsed bu a high Hamas official.

4- Obama the socialist was called such because he was on the Democratic Socialist Party ticket in the 90s and because of his policies of attempted nationalization and or expansion of government into the Finance, health and auto industries

Lally for 0 for four with his accusations. He also some lame victomhood lament as if he was the guy from the Oranges that went through hard times.

I have no problem with Jim coming back to the chain after saying he wouldn't. But I do have a problem with Jim's double standard and hypocrisy - he whines like a baby when when he gets criticized, yet probably fifty percent of the time (conservatively) he does nothing but insult and name-call. Walk the walk Jim, own your shortcomings like a man. Then you may have a resasonable expectation of being taken seriously.